1 Social Psychology and Change Management1
Introduction
Social psychology can offer important insights into change, for instance that change and intervention are all about interaction and meaning. However, in change management the insights provided by social psychology are not used frequently enough. By understanding the perspective of social psychology, change management as a profession can continue to grow. Managers and advisers are working every day to change organizations and the behaviour of employees. At times they do so spontaneously by giving an encouraging or a disapproving response to the behaviour of a group or individual; at other times they do so as part of a well-thought-out plan to bring about a particular change. Either way they are dealing with âsocial animalsâ. Aristotle once said that humans are social (and political) beings by nature: man is different from other social beings because he can distinguish between good and evil, and between justice and injustice (Aristotle, 328 BC). In a conscious approach to change, one might, for instance, want to change an organizationâs structure or its management style. The approach can also be more comprehensive. Take the Organization Development (OD) approach: âA system-wide application of behavioural science knowledge with a planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures and processes to make the organization more effectiveâ (Cummings & Huse, 1989, p. 1; our translation). In addition, from the point of view of strategy-structure-systems one can also focus unilaterally on the âhard sideâ, or from the point of view of target-process-people on the âsoft sideâ (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1996). Those two points of view can also be integrated, as in an integral model for culture change (e.g. Claus, 1991).
Social psychologist Schein (1999) distinguishes between primary anchoring mechanisms and secondary articulation and culture-reinforcing mechanisms. Primary anchoring mechanisms can be seen in the way in which leaders react to critical situationsâwhat do they pay attention to, what do they reject or implement? Other examples are conscious model behaviour and appointing role models. Some of the secondarymechanisms Schein indicates are organizational structures, systems and procedures, designing work areas, plus rituals and customs, stories and myths, and formal statements on the values of the organization. The approach âlimitsâ itself by focusing on âpeopleâ at certain times, and on the âsystemâs sideâ at other times. From a people perspective, behaviour is considered a function of the knowledge, attitudes and assumptions of individuals and groups; in these cases, interventions refer to values, leadership, collaboration and communication. From a systemâs perspective, behaviour is a function of the organizational system with interventions aimed at, among other things, the content of strategy and policy, organizational structure, reward systems and accountability. Ultimately, change management always concerns the possibilities and difficulties that are connected to (and influence) behavioural change on individual, group and organizational levels. People are social animals. It is all about the behaviour of and between people in social contexts. That is precisely the domain of social psychology. That profession revolves around the influence that people have on the convictions, the feelings and the behaviour of others (Aronson, 2016). However, an analysis of more than fifty bestsellers on the subject of change management shows us that social psychology is conspicuous by its absence (ten Have et al., 2017). Some books still mention Albert Bandura (for instance Bandura, 1963) and his social-cognitive learning theory. âgroupthinkâ and group dynamics are referred to left and right (for instance Janis, 1982). The notion of âsocial proofâ is visible in opinions about model behaviour, âsignificant othersâ and the dissemination of ideas (for instance Sherif, 1935; Cialdini et al., 1999). But that is about it. We are talking about the best-selling and most popular books about the profession. They often touch on the right subjects and issues, or at least the most recognizable ones from the field. At the same time, they clearly ignore an enormous amount of very relevant knowledge. Not only is that a shame, but also it is a professional irresponsibility, especially since change management usually concerns issues with a great organizational, emotional, economic and social impact. It concerns the right to exist, jobs, identity, prosperity and welfare. Notwithstanding the more widespread socio-psychological insights of eminences like Weick (1979, 1995), Lewin (1943a) and Schein (1985, 1999), from the perspective of change management the discipline of social psychology is still a sleeping giant. Given the challenges and issues that managers and advisers are faced with during change, plus the level of knowledge in the field, there is still a world to be conquered out there.
Social Psychology in the Practice of Change Management
The importance of social psychology for change management in the field became apparent, for example, when a multinational asked us to brainstorm with them about their methods and methodology for change management. In the past decade, this organization had rather successfully translated several environmental changes into strategic adjustments and organizational changes. Nevertheless, the leaders still wondered if their knowledge of change management was still sufficiently current and advanced, for now and for the future. We asked them to state the aspects of change for which, in their opinion, they had sufficient in-house knowledge. They mentioned strategic developments, economic analyses and management control, and they referred to what Bower (2000) calls the âsystemic cultureâ. The latter is about control as programmed in the system of mission, values, reward systems, performance guidance, tasks-responsibilities-competences, the process of resource allocation, selection and promotion, training and development of employees and adjustmentâto name but a few.
A strongly developed system of control is a positive point, but when changing circumstances require a change of course, such a positive point can become a millstone around your neck. The adage that structure follows strategy is then turned upside down: strategy follows structure (Eppink & ten Have, 2008). Strikwerda (2011) points out that the majority of enterprises forget to translate a new strategy into an adjusted systemic culture. As a consequence the activities set out to execute the new strategy are not determined by that new strategy, but by the old systemic culture. Culture grows into a product of success and failure, of what can and cannot be rewarded or punished. Culture influences the system of control, which in turn further reinforces culture through socialization, indoctrination, stimulating or demanding appropriate behaviour. Schein defines culture as follows: âA pattern of basic assumptionsâinvented, discovered or developed by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integrationâthat has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problemsâ (Schein, 1985, p. 9, our translation). In the briefing of the aforementioned multinational it was noted that culture change would be a point of interest, which, with the help of what went before, is understandable. There is a successful business model that gave rise to a particular culture. Except that they are not sure that this current culture will remain the cornerstone of the organization, or whether they can come up with a new systemic context. This critical self-reflection of an indisputably successful company can certainly be called positive. In the context of this case, it is interesting to see what Strikwerda (2002) has to say about advice and advisers: âModern organization advisers must not only know the socio-psychological aspects of organizational change (knowledge that is rather superficial in many advisers); the modern adviser must also be well versed in institutional economic analyses (this is on a different level than the quantitative analyses for strategy) and management control in the modern sense to be able to serve clientsâ.2 Considering what the organization that approached us did and did not experience as problematic, it mostly focused on the former. Even though behaviour and culture were discussed extensively in our first meeting, they failed to mention social psychology. This multinational is not the only one. A leading social psychologist who has been working for decades to release his insights into that discipline in order to feed change management is Edgar Schein, one of the founders of the change management profession. In an interview with Diane Coutu in 2002 he confessed at the age of 74: âWhen I left Walter Reed for my first job at MIT, my mentor Douglas McGregor said to me: âEd, we took you on as a social psychologist, not as a management expert. So find out what social psychology can do for the things that managers think are relevantâ â.3 Weick and Lewin have also done research on that. Thanks to their work, the field of social psychology has opened up to answer questions that are relevant to managers, and to contribute to the solutions of their problems. Strikwerda (2002) correctly stated that advisers must know the socio-psychological aspects of organizational change. The same obviously applies to managers and other participants in the field. Strikwerda also correctly noted that this knowledge is too superficial, if not entirely absent, in many advisers and managers. In other words, the available socio-psychological knowledge is insufficiently utilized. The socio-psychological knowledge being propagated is also responsible for this âshortageâ. The example of the more than fifty bestsellers on change management (ten Have et al., 2017) mentioned earlier clearly illustrates that the quality and availability and how they are presented leave a lot to be desired.
Social Psychology in Four Core Insights
The availability can be improved by employing four core insights. The first insight clearly shows why social psychology, âtout courtâ, is relevant to change management: it is about people and people are social beings. The second shows why cohesion and methodization are important: there are a number of psychological forces and factors at play during change and that requires a combination of a variety of theories and insights. In that context, Rijsman (1990) refers to âan inventory of social influencesâ. The third is about the central mechanism in social systems during change, which is to assign meaning. For instance, a mission, values or a reward system as such do next to nothing. They only âdoâ, or accomplish, something if they are meaningful to the people involved. With meaning as a starting point it becomes clear why social psychology, which revolves around social interaction, is so relevant. The fourth insight pushes back on the optimistic rhetoric which is typical of the many books, gurus and consultants in the change management segment. People act and react in a variety of ways in social environments. Especially during change it is essential to be able to explain, understand and predict; social psychology is ideal for supplying people with the tools for that. The four core insights are explained in depth next.
Core Insight 1âPeople Are Social Animals and Change in Organizations Is a Social Process
An analysis of the most important manuals shows that there are literally more than 100 relevant socio-psychological theories and models for change management. There is a lot available, including the necessary evidence. However, what is missing is the overview, the categorization and the relevance in relation to change management. A theory like the one of social affirmation (Cohen & Sherman, 2014) has already been studied and âtranslatedâ in relation to change. But this step has still not been taken for most theories, or at least not sufficiently. Take, for instance, cognitive dissonance, planned behaviour, expectations, social identity, equity, conformity and social justice. From the perspective of change management these theories do not rise above the level of data, in a manner of speaking. For the time being, it is about data without meaning (Bots & Jansen, 2013). It only becomes information once the relevance of a theory for change management has been determined and, as with social affirmation, the âtranslationâ has been made. Knowledge is only created once this information has been selected, interpreted, combined and valued and, consequently, has enabled people to complete particular tasks (in this case, a manager or an adviser who gives change form and content) (Bertrams, 1999).
Social psychology teaches us that people are social beings (Fiske, 2010) or social animals (Aronson, 2016) and that change is a social process (Weick, 1979). It lets people be people again and makes change human. People are no longer objects (a fulltime-equivalent, fte, an employee, a resource, a project officer), but subjects. A subject which has needs and shows reactions, creates meaning through coordinated (inter)action with other subjects (Rijsman, 1997). Lewinâs work shows us that in a concrete change situation one must obtain insight into all the forces or factors that influence change in relation to one another. Especially in complex change situations, many of factors come into play. An initial step is to come to a first temporary âstaticâ order, an inventory of social influences (Rijsman, 1990). That inventory offers an overview of relevant factors, but not yet how it operates in the field. The question is, what should that order or that model be like? One possibility is to classify the theories on the basis of subject matters that are relevant to change, such as leadership, organization and communication. One can also decide to include distinctions between the individual, intra- and inter-groups and the organization. In relation to change, however, it seems to be more fruitful to have the concept of the social being link up with what mobilizes or inhibits people, and what helps or obstructs them.
In that context, Fiske introduced (2010, p. 14) the âsocial core motivesâ: âfundamental, underlying psychological processes that determine the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of people in situations in which they have to deal with othersâ. The five motives of social animals are: belonging, understanding, controlling, trusting and enhancing self. Belonging stands for the idea that for people to survive psychologically and physically they need stable relationships with others. This need is linked to theories on, for instance, social cohesion, conformity and prosocial behaviour. Understanding refers to the desire of people to understand their environment, to predict and to assign meaning. The attribution theory and the social representation theory apply here. Controlling stimulates people to deal effectively with their environment. Relevant theories for this are, for instance, the expectations theory and the cognitive dissonance theory. Trusting is about seeing âthe worldâ or oneâs own context as a good, safe and trustworthy place. Relevant theories in this context include that of fair process, equity and moral disengagement. Enhancing self is about self-confidence, a positive self-image or being motivated to grow or to improve oneself. Relevant theories include that of self-efficacy (âaction controlâ), social reinforcement and self-affirmation. The motives and the relevant theories and insights offer an initial overview of and insight into ideas that can be useful in identifying the behaviour of social beings in situations of change. That alone will probably already prevent rash qualifications and stigmatization, and help change management to advance.
Core Insight 2âSocial Psychology Is Necessary to Understand People in Change Processes
Bower (2000) positions the systemic context as the determining factor in change. The system that includes mission, values, strategy, structure, systems and means aimed at development and socialization, such as training and courses, is a strong determining factor for the behaviour of organizations and groups. That system, which carries in it a âdominant logicâ, is the result of behaviour learned earlier, often because of success. That is why Schein (2001, p. 37) defines the organizationâs culture as âthe sum of all commonly held assumptions that a group has learned during its lifetimeâ. If one wants to change, then one must change that dominant logic, the culture. Tinkering with the systemic context can seem an attractive option.
But it is not as easy as that. It is true that a change in the reward system, a new organizational structure, the introduction of âAgileâ or a new leader can achieve the desired behavioural effects. But if they are accomplished, these effects usually do not last long. An important initial explanation for this is that with this type of isolated or one-dimensional intervention the systemic context does not automatically change. A change of the systemic context requires breadth: factors such as mission, strategy and structure must be tackled in a complete and coordinated way, in other words, integrally. A second explanation has to do with depth: sweeping changes are not purely technical; they are adaptive (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). These changes touch on what is essential and valuable to groups and individuals. They are concerned with basic assumptions, emotions, values and identity. The systemic context offers insight and comfort when it comes to the importance and the workings of integration and the âbreadthâ of interventions. However, if we want to understand more about the âdepthâ, how change âworksâ on and for the people involved, then more is required.
Social psychology and Lewinâs field theory (1943a,b) certainly offer âmoreâ. Lewin states that if one does not understand the current situation, or which forces and factors maintain this situation, even the beginning of change is far off. The field theory helps individuals and groups to explore, understand and learn about themselves. In the process, subjects interact with subjects. It is all about participatory learning, a process in which groups and individuals are in fact âseenâ and involved. Lewin considered this type of learning as the beginning of a change process. He believes that real change demands that you determine which concrete forces or factors must be changed in a specific context, and what the (possible) effects of the forces or factors might be. In other words, the change manager will have to identify the various possible change options and analyse them, make a selection from them, and then proceed to implement the selected changes (Burnes & Cooke, 2012). It is for that reaso...